Dawgs By Nature: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Voodoo Five for South Florida Bulls Fans!

How to Beat the House: Value in the Draft

If you asked most NFL fans "Where is the best place to draft?", the most likely answer you would get is "as close to the top of the round as you can get".  The most talented players are picked first.  That is why the draft order is in reverse of the standings.  The worse a team is, the more it needs talented players.  The assumption would be, the higher the better.  You know what they say about assumptions.

Jamarcus-russell-oct-11-2009-c8fcba820debc11e_large_medium

What are the odds that this pass was incomplete or intercepted?

Star-divide

val-ue (val'you) 1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

This more than anything has to be kept in mind.  Yes, we all want Jake Long, but isn't Ryan Clady, a very comparable player but 40 million dollars cheaper, a better value?  The answer is yes.  Always be asking, what is the best value?  

What I am going to try and do, is find out what is the best value for a pick in the NFL draft?  I am considering all factors.  Money, length, and value of player picked.  I have gone back over the past ten drafts while researching the Browns drafting habits.  Something stood out.  What is more important?  Having the better choice of player, or having less money tied into an unproven player?

I am trying to find the perfect area in which the return is still high in terms of drafting a serviceable, and hopefully Pro Bowl level player, but the downside is affordable.

I am looking at some different factors.  Length of contract, money per pick, and at what point in the draft does the talent level fall off?  Some of these factors will be easier than others to prove, and some will be up for debate.  At the end of this, I hope to find the best value picks in todays NFL draft.  

And here we go.

CONTRACT LENGTH  

First, we need to find out how long teams can sign player

  • For picks 1-16 (first half of first round) a contract can be no longer than 6 seasons.
  • For picks 17-32 (second half of first round) a contract can be no longer than 5 seasons.
  • For picks 32 and on, a contract can be no longer than 4 seasons.
  •  

    This doesn't seem like a huge deal, and personally I don't think it is.  In speaking of first round picks, at the end of 5 seasons, you should have a good idea what kind of player that you have drafted.  Is the extra season under contract worth the higher draft slot?  I don't think so.  So the length of the contract is mentionable, but hardly a main factor in drafting.

    CONTRACT VALUES

    The NFL works off of a slotting system for the draft.  In other words, the number one pick is paid the most, pick number two is paid less, pick three less than two and so on.  It isn't hard to figure out what a top pick will receive.  Take the previous years selection at the same slot, and in a couple extra million, and boom, rookie contract is made.  

    2007 NFL Draft 15th Pick: Lawrence Timmons  (5 years, 15 million)

    2008 NFL Draft 15th Pick:  Branden Albert  (5 years, 16 million)

    On the other hand, second round players are given usually around one million dollars per season.

    2008 NFL Draft 57th Pick: Chad Henne (4 years, 3.5 Million)

    2009 NFL Draft 44th Pick: Pat White (4 years, 4.75 Million)

    At what point in the draft does the money amount change from asinine, to a worthy gamble?  I have done much research on this.  I have gone through almost every teams rosters and salaries trying to figure out what would be a good dollar amount to place on a rookie.  When it came down to it, I did the easiest, and in my opinion the most practical, solution I could think of.  

    • I took the 2009 NFL Salary Cap (127 Million) and divided it by 45.  Why 45?  Because on game day, the NFL allows every team to dress 45 players (46 if you count the emergency QB).  So I think that a rookie should be given his fair share.
    • I took this figure, 2.82 million and inflated it some.  After all, this is a first round draft pick that should be counted on play, and play well.  This isn't a guy off the street.  Most first round picks are expected to be starters from day one.  How much do I inflate?  I added in $500,000 bonus to be the first round draft choice.  500k may be a large number to you and I, but when you are considering the 127 million dollar cap, it isn't.
    • I came across a small issue around the '05 NFL draft.  The inflation of the draft class was surpassing that of the NFL.  So I added in a balloon payment, starting in '06.  Every year, I will add in an extra $50,000 to the previous season rookie pick.  This is a MINIMAL upgrade every season.  50k was .000397% of the '09 salary cap.  Minimal.
    • This gives us a formula to follow every year for figuring out where we need to set the ceiling of our draft.  From '95 on, here is what it would look like.  If anyone has ideas on how to tweak this formula, I am all ears.

    Now this isn't some sort of hard cap, it should be slightly flexible.  After all, if there was a player that was really what we needed, we should be able to jump up an extra pick or two to make it happen.  But it can't be much more or we risk getting into a dangerous zone again.  The following season the cap number will rise and so will the cap number for our NFL rookie.  But, as we discussed above, with every passing season the cap and rookie pay scale increases.  These usually increase at closely the same rate, so if everything  holds true, our rookie cap will increase with every passing season along with the draft.  We don't have to make a new formula every season, it adjusts itself!  

    Looking back, what would this formula allowed a team to spend on their first choice of the draft?  (The latest salary cap info I could find was for '05)

    • 2005:  Salary Cap 85.5 Million / 45 Players = 1.9 million + 500k = 2.4 Million per pick
    • 2006:  Salary Cap 102 Million / 45 Players = 2.26 million + 550k = 2.81 Million per pick
    • 2007:  Salary Cap 107 Million / 45 Players = 2.3 million + 600k = 2.9 Million per pick
    • 2008:  Salary Cap 116.7 Million / 45 Players = 2.59 million + 650k = 3.24 Million per pick
    • 2009:  Salary Cap 127 Million / 45 Players = 2.82 Million + 700k = 3.52 Million per pick

    Where did this figures get us in the NFL draft these seasons?  

    • 2005 DeMarcus Ware 5 years, 12 million = 2.4 Million [11th Overall, 1st round]
    • 2006 Broderick Bunkley 6 years, 17 million = 2.8 Million [14th Overall, 1st round]
    • 2007 Jarvis Moss 5 years, 14.95 million = 2.99 Million [17th Overall, 1st round]
    • 2008 Branden Albert 5 years, 15.8 million = 3.18 Million [15th Overall, 1st round]
    • 2009 Brian Cushing 5 years, 18 million = 3.6 Million [15th Overall, 1st round]

    So looking at the data, it shows that the highest we should be looking to draft is somewhere around the 15-17 range.  The slight pay increase every season keeps us mostly in the same range year in and year out.  These numbers are not hard caps, but should be followed as closely as possible.

    So, now that we have an idea of what we would like to pay our rookies, what would this do for our teams salary cap?  In theory, over time the team would lower its payroll across the board.  After all, we aren't paying second, third, fourth, and so on, rounders the same amount we would be paying our first rounders.  This would allow our team to have deep pockets in free agency filling the gaps that we missed in the draft, and most importantly keeping the players that turn in to quality players on the roster.  We would become self sufficient in a perfect world.  If a player decides that he could earn more money elsewhere, our drafting strategy would allow us to either draft replacements ahead of time, or go the free agency route to replace the player at a cheaper price.  I know, this is what every team strives for but only a few have become successful at (New England, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Philly).  This thinking just takes these theories to the next step.

    Now that we have a cap at where we should be picking, we need to find the lowest of the value.  At what point in the draft does the talent really start to dry up?

    TALENT DROP OFF

    This was very hard for me to gauge.  How do I qualify that a player is good?  Is it a starter?  I have my opinions on certain players that may not mesh with what you think.  I needed to find something more concrete.  I needed to find a formula of some sort that is fair to all the players.  I decided on this.

    • From the day that a player is drafted, he has four seasons to reach a Pro Bowl.  After all we are trying to find out where the IMPACT players dry up in the NFL draft.  Granted, the travishamockery that the Pro Bowl has turned into this season has somewhat hurt this years Pro Bowl, but this never affected my results.
    • I chose 4 seasons for one reason.  As we discovered earlier, 2nd round picks are not allowed to sign anything longer than a four year contract.  An Impact player makes an impact during a rookie contract.
    • Again, this is what I am looking for suggestions on.  Does this sound like a decent enough way to establish a floor?  Is there some other way you think would be better?  I am all ears.

    By no means am I saying that a player that doesn't make a Pro Bowl in his first four seasons is not a good player.  Example, in the '05 draft, Barrett Rudd was taken with the 36th pick, hasn't reached a Pro Bowl and I consider him a damn fine player.  The same could be said for our own D'Qwell Jackson.  A damn fine player, but not the IMPACT player that I am looking for.  That is why I drew the line.  I needed something concrete to prove my point.

    So where was the floor?  I went back and looked at the '99 draft all the until the '08 draft.  I left out the '09 draft because we really still have no idea about these players.  Some may say that I should have kept out the '08 and '07 drafts as well.  But looking back, I am confident in saying that Ray Rice and LaMarr Woodley are impact players at this level.  

    Every season looking back, I looked for the final player that matched my criteria above and was in a grouping of other strong players.  I did this because I am looking for the talent drop off.  After all in the '05 draft Trent Cole was the 146th player.  He is a very good player, but he was sandwiched around crap in the draft (Jerome Collins, Dan Orlovsky, Alphonso Hodge, and Jonathon Welsh).  I am not looking for how far diamonds fall in the draft, I am looking for what is the last point that the majority of players picked are quality NFL players.

    So here in order are the players from '99 to '08.

    • 1999: Pick 41: Dre Bly CB, Multiple Pro Bowls
    • 2000: Pick 40: Ian Gold LB, Pro Bowl in '01
    • 2001: Pick 52: Chris Chambers, WR Pro Bowl in '05
    • 2002: Pick 58: Michael Lewis, SS Multiple Pro Bowls
    • 2003: Pick 56: Osi Umenyoria, DE Multiple Pro Bowls
    • 2004: Pick 44: Bob Sanders, SS Multiple Pro Bowls
    • 2005: Pick 51: Nick Collins, FS Multiple Pro Bowls
    • 2006: Pick 50: Marcus McNeil, LT Multiple Pro Bowls
    • 2007: Pick 46: LaMaar Woodley, OLB Pro Bowl '09 (Original Choice, I could have gone with Ryan Kalil, but he was an injury replacement so I stuck with Woodley.)  
    • 2008: Pick 55: Ray Rice, RB, Pro Bowl '09 (Original Choice)

    Every draft is different.  Some are stronger, some are weaker.  These drafts have averaged out to be the 49.3 pick in the draft.  Just because I like round numbers, I am willing to round that number up to 50.  Once again, good even great players will be found after this pick.  Anyone who says different is a fool.  This just happens to be a pretty good estimation on where the talent takes a steep drop off.  That is what we were after right?

    Pick Ceiling: Pick 15 (established in contract values)

    Pick Floor: Pick 50 (established in talent drop off)

    WHAT THIS TELLS US:

    Now that we have found the value potion of the draft how do we get there?  Trading down is damn near impossible in todays NFL.  Why?  Because most teams don't want to pay the huge contracts and give up the high price to trade up.  We as a team can control one of these factors.  

    Here is the NFL trade chart for draft picks.  The Browns hold the number 7 pick, according to the chart worth 1,500 points.  It would cost the Giants their first (15th worth 1,050) and second round picks (46th worth 440) to even make it close according to the chart.  

    This is what I am offering.  Take 75 cents on the dollar.  Ask the Chiefs if they would be willing to trade both of thier second rounders (50th worth 400 points and the 36th worth 540 points) plus their third rounder (68th worth 250 points) for the 7th pick.  According to the draft chart, we are only getting 1,190 points for a pick that is worth 1,500.  That is only 79% of the value.  But we are getting out from under a draft choice that will need to be paid upwards of 8 million dollars a season.

    At first glance this looks crazy.  We are passing up a chance at Joe Haden or Eric Berry.  But we acquiring two picks in the value zone and another third pick. This would give the Browns three choices in the third round (68th, 71st, and 92nd choice.)  Could we use one of these to trade back up into the value zone for a third pick?  Possibly.

    We could also trade a third rounder for a following season's second rounder.  This isn't impossible, New England did this twice last year and has three second rounders this season.  We should always be trying to get into this zone. 

    We need to be attacking the area of the draft where we as a team are getting the best bang for our dollar.  

    New England is the team to really watch.  They have done this perfectly over the past two drafts.  In the '09 draft they had four draft choices.  These four players all had an impact on their season (Vollmer, Butler, Brace, and Chung).  This upcoming draft the Pats have three second round choices.  They got the Chiefs pick in the Cassel deal, but the rest of the picks were acquired by trading down.  

    Remember when the trade of Matt Cassel went down and everyone thought that the Pats were crazy to want the second rounder instead of the first rounder from the Chiefs?  The Pats were smart enough to realize the danger of picking high.  The Pats are the one team in the NFL who have figured this out.  The end of the first round, and more importantly (think cheaper) the second round is the best value.  When will other teams start putting this together?

    I am not saying that this line of thinking is the only way to attack a draft.  After all, we as a team must pass on players like Andre Johnson, Joe Thomas and Adrian Peterson's of the world.  But for every Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald there is a Troy Williamson and Charles Rogers.  For every Greg Jennings drafted there is a Andre Davis.  The difference is that an Andre Davis costs 6 million while Charles Rogers costs 60 million.

    As a franchise you can remove the most dangerous aspect of a draft pick.  Paying through the nose for a crap player.  Maybe you fan base wont be excited, but they will when you start winning.  Take away the risk, yet keep a decent enough window of success.

    No one can predict that any player will ever be a star, let alone in the NFL after 4 years.  The NFL draft is a lottery.  A crap shoot.  Maybe a player played the perfect system.  Maybe they have already maxed out their talent.  Yes, we like to think that we have an idea what players will be stars (Think Calvin Johnson destroying the ACC) but no matter how many times we say a player is for sure, players burn out.  

    And there in lies the rub.  No matter how sure Mel Kiper and Todd McShay think they know a player, it is a crapshoot.  So my question is, why not be responsible and remove the risk that we can?

    1 recs  |  Comment 161 comments |

    Story-email Email Printer Print

    Comments

    Display:

    First reaction:

    Mangini learned well from Belicheck.

    fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com

    by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 8, 2010 3:24 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    Mangini’s handling of the first round last year was brilliant.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

    by Spidey on Feb 8, 2010 8:48 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    He did do a nice job…2nd, well, not so much. Still, he’s got the cupboard pretty full this year and I have every confidence we’ll do quite nicely.

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 8, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    *2nd not so much….yet.

    by Roger Dorn on Feb 8, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    naw. it was bad

    by Rocland on Feb 8, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I stand by it. It doesn’t look good now, but judging a draft after one season is foolish.

    by Roger Dorn on Feb 8, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

    It is no secret that I was not the leader of the Mangini fan club last season.

    That being said, Mangini trading out of the five pick, acquiring players and more picks and most importantly avoiding the five spot price tag, was maybe the best thing to happen to this franchise since the Joe Thomas pick.

    That isn’t hyperbole.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 8, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    maybe the best thing to happen to this franchise since the Joe Thomas pick.

    Nothing has really gone according to plan since then.

    by rufio on Feb 8, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Totally agreed. I gave Mangini a ton of credit for making that move.

    I’ve also loved his other two big trades, but we’ve discussed those enough.

    Not sure if his picks will work out, but at least its clear that Mangini knows where the value is.

    fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com

    by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 8, 2010 9:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I think he one-upped Belichick. If the Steelers were going to grab Mack and Mangini grabbed him partly to keep Pitt down, then that’s sheer brilliance. Especially since he was ORoY runner up.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 8, 2010 11:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    This should be required reading for everyone who wants to discuss the draft options for the Browns. What people often forget is Jimmie Johnson created the Draft Chart 20 years ago, before the salary cap and the hyperinflation of top-10 draft contracts. The point system never took into account contracts and the long-term weight of a top-10 pick on the team.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

    by Spidey on Feb 8, 2010 8:45 AM EST via mobile reply actions   0 recs

    Exactly, the old draft value chart is a moot point when referencing the modern day first round.

    This is what I am offering. Take 75 cents on the dollar. Ask the Chiefs if they would be willing to trade both of thier second rounders (50th worth 400 points and the 36th worth 540 points) plus their third rounder (68th worth 250 points) for the 7th pick. According to the draft chart, we are only getting 1,190 points for a pick that is worth 1,500. That is only 79% of the value. But we are getting out from under a draft choice that will need to be paid upwards of 8 million dollars a season.

    To say we’d only be taking 75% of the value is a misrepresentation. BK, you defined the idea of value well, but that paragraph implies that high firsts still have that high value when the reality is that they do not. I think 75 cents on the dollar, according to the draft chart, is probably high – at least for the topmost picks.

    The only way to try to accurately gauge value would be to look at real world trade data, of which there is a terribly SSS. Just off the top of my head, you’d probably find a huge standard deviation on that value.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 9:47 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    How many front office people understand this? And of those who understand the paradox of value for top first rounders, how many are gutsy enough to take less than the Draft Chart indicates? A GM will have to answer a lot of questions from media and fans who treat the Draft Chart as the Kelly Blue Book.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

    by Spidey on Feb 8, 2010 10:08 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    Out of curiosity, I looked at 07-09 round one pick trades. I didn’t include the Quinn trade because of the gambling nature of the pick (furture first rounder).

    Format will be YEAR, PICK ACQUIRED, POINT VALUE CHANGE (per the chart, negative means the team acquiring the pick got good value).

    2009, 5, +20 (I valued Coleman, Elam, and Ratliff at high third round, low third round, and low sixth round. This number is a bit conjured and wholly debatable so don’t read into it too much).
    2009, 17, -60
    2009, 23, -33
    2009, 26, +163
    2008, 7, -26
    2008, 8, -273
    2008, 15, -12
    2008, 18, -33
    2008. 19. -329
    2008, 21, +66
    2008, 25, -33
    2008, 30, -12
    2007, 14, -60
    2007, 17, +28
    2007, 26, +23

    Notes: Lots of variability as expected, the 26th picks was traded five times in the last three years (weird), these trades sum to a loss of 571 points (second pick, second round), there have only been a few big value disparities and only one of them came in the top ten (perhaps more data will change that, but unexpected)

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    There were 3 trades into the top ten, 7 trades into spots 11-21, and 5 trades into the end of the round. Of course, it’s SSS, but fewer trades into the top ten is not surprising and likely supportive of the idea that it’s difficult to find value that high.

    It supports BK’s idea that 75% value might actually be easily workable, though, so I have to note that my first impression was wrong there.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 10:40 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Adding in 2005 and 2006, you find 5 total trades into 1-10, versus 14 into 11-21 and 15 into 22-32.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    but the cause of fewer trades into the top ten isn’t necessarily that teams don’t want to be their, it could just be that teams that have those picks don’t want to give them up.

    I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

    by notthatnoise on Feb 8, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    At the risk of reading too much into a small sample size, I’d say that were that the case, we’d see examples of teams overpaying to get into the top ten. I’m not sure that’s happened recently.

    The Eli/Rivers trade is kind of a weird situation, but that’s the only recent one that could qualify, I think.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    While you certainly could be right, i don’t think you can totally rule out that teams may just ask for way too much to move into the top ten. maybe the asking price would be in the range of the ricky williams deal, which i think we all can agree is far too high, even without the added downside of a huge contract.

    I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

    by notthatnoise on Feb 8, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Well, that’s probably happened, yes, but i think it’s fairly safe to assume that either more deals would be happening or someone would have “overpaid” to get into the top five or ten recently if the draft chart values were still considered legit.

    I’m not saying that teams are not asking too much, I’m saying that the draft chart values for the top ten are asking too much. That is, if a team asks another team to pay according to the draft chart, that’s considered a steep price, not reasonable price.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    ok, i can agree with that. its not that those picks aren’t attractive to teams, its that the price to get one is ridiculous. is that what you’re saying?

    I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

    by notthatnoise on Feb 8, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yes, the price according to the chart (and thus the money-less viewpoint) is very high. Any more would be ludicrous.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    ESPN the mag put together an adjusted draft value chart about 2 years ago (3 years ago?).

    We should try to find that and see if your/BK19’s data looks similar. I believe the values were still non-linear (exponential? I am an art student), but with a much, much slower-declining curve. Essentially this raised the values of the 2nd round and lowered the values of the top 5.

    by rufio on Feb 8, 2010 8:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I’m just going to comment as I see things, so first thing that jumped out at me:

    Some may say that I should have kept out the ’08 and ’07 drafts as well. But looking back, I am confident in saying that Ray Rice and LaMarr Woodley are impact players at this level.

    This is wrong, because it will inflate the value of early picks. Making the reasonable assumption that top picks are more likely to make PBs (due to PT and talent level), they will also likely reach the PB earlier than a second (or later) round counterpart. Taking data from 2007 and 2008 is cutting off the four year span that previous late round picks may have used to reach “impact” level.

    Even if it’s not true that first round picks make it earlier or more often, you’d still be using an inconsistent measuring stick. You can’t use all of the data from 99-06 and some of the data from 07-08. It’s statistically invalid.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 8:51 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    I did include all of the picks in the ’07 & ’08 draft.

    I think I may have done a poor job explaining it.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 8, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Well, yes, but what I’m saying is that by doing so you’re not allowing those classes equal time to get into the ProBowl. Therefore, a cluster of players that may be in the PB come 2011 but haven’t made it yet could exist, but you’re data discounts them. That would skew the data.

    To put it another way, what if you only looked at which players made the PB within two years for the 2001 class? That would seem silly, no? Same deal.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 7:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Gotcha.

    Even if I take out those drafts, the average draft position of talent drop off would be 49.

    Take away the ’06 draft as well, and the pick average drops to 48.8.

    I do understand what you are saying about years I forgot to account for, but even removing them the floor still remains in the same range.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 8, 2010 8:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    So, how do you both account for paradigm shifts/rules changes (emphasis on the illegal contact calls, influx of skilled college players who don’t fit cleanly in to established defensive or offensive systems, a lot more shotgun, etc.) and SSS?

    by rufio on Feb 8, 2010 8:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Woah. When this article was moved it freaked me out. I thought my internet was acting up.

    Not cool.

    If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...

    by SpecialBrownie on Feb 8, 2010 1:25 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

    I like the general conclusion, statistical insignificance notwithstanding, considering this particular draft may have more top talent in it as a result of the cap rules. That is, the 50th pick that you mention as being the average drop off in talent point may very well be 60 or 70 for this draft, making the acquisition of any second round picks more valuable.

    by chitown browns fan on Feb 8, 2010 2:08 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

    Yea, I think the general point stands, that there is a point somewhere in the 2nd round where the picks become less important. Very interesting to consider, which is why I think you see some teams targeting a stockpile of 2nd round picks.

    by Roger Dorn on Feb 8, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yeah, the overall value of second round picks is something the savvy teams seem to be honing in on.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Ultimately you still have to draft well. You can stockpile 2nd rounders and miss and it gets you nowhere. Same holds true in the first round, but the 2nd round doesn’t hamstring you financially when you miss.

    by Roger Dorn on Feb 8, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    True true true.

    by danvail on Feb 8, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    And this is pretty much where I landed.

    The odds of getting a “special” player may be lower, but not much lower.

    The odds of making a massive financial disaster is much higher.

    Considering those statements, why not avoid the financial downfall?

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 8, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    If you are going to call players “special”, I think you set the bar too low.

    Purely subjectively (and there is no objective measure of a player’s talent), I think the odds of getting a “special” player are much better in the first round. Odds of getting “good to very good” players are probably very good in the second, odds of getting “special” players are probably still very good in the second relative to later rounds. The financial risk is obviously much lower in the 2nd.

    Top shelf LTs right now are Thomas, Clady, Long, and maybe Peters. Maybe I left one out, but two of those four were picked in the top 5.

    QBs, Manning, Brees, Brady, Rivers, maybe…Rodgers? McNabb? All 1st rounders, with the exceptions of Brees and Brady.

    WRs, Johnson and Johnson (Calvin and Andre) are head and shoulders above the league, along with Fitz, IMO. All high picks.

    TE seems like a great exception, with Gates, Clark, and Gonzo being the three I really see as better than the others, but there doesn’t seem to be nearly as much of a VORP from top to bottom.

    I’d say Guard and Center are probably similar to TE.

    I think that this sort of disparity in talent amongst players in the league (i.e. QBs vs, say RBs) combined with the on-field value of the position is a pretty solid indicator of where you should be looking to pick a guy. QBs touch the ball every offensive play, there are too few good ones, you probably need to pick one in the first round. RBs do something every play, but the value of Peterson over Frank Gore isn’t going to win you games the way an elite QB vs. average QB could. Also, many teams have two or even three RBs capable of being productive backs, so you can pick them later.

    The real argument for 2nd rounders is not that you find “special” players there, it’s that the risk/reward situation is much better there. Much less risk, a little less reward.

    by rufio on Feb 8, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    You’re right.

    The reason I used special is because I am in the middle of the QB article.

    It was my bad. I should have used “impact” or “very good” instead. Special implies elite and that was my fault.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 8, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    And you can still win win with “impact” or “very good” players. At least at a lot of positions.

    How are you feeling about the values of the 1st round QBs after looking at all of this stuff?

    by rufio on Feb 9, 2010 12:22 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I am in the middle of the article right now.

    Pretty much, we shouldn’t be drafting a QB after the first round. Ever. Something I thought I would never say. The rub is when you draft a QB in the first round.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 9, 2010 7:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I agree. I went back and looked. there have been 20 pro bowl QBs drafted since 1999. 13 of these were in the first round, 2 were in the 2nd, one was tom brady, and one was undrafted b/c he was 1-AA. the rest are david garrard (who didn’t deserve a pro bowl bid), DA (don’t even need to go there) and Marc Bulger (only good in the martz system). tom brady really is the exception to the rule, and brees was the first pick in the 2nd ONLY b/c he was an inch too short (and he would have been the 32 pick in the draft which is now in the first round).

    In general, QBs in the first tend to be much more likely to be solid starters and not busts than QBs in other rounds and other position in the first.

    by bross09 on Feb 9, 2010 11:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    This is what I would have guessed without doing what you are doing. Interested to see what you will find.

    I am feeling more and more comfortable with a QB pick at #7, provided Berry and Suh are both gone (they will probably be). Hopefully, that would be the last time we’d be picking in the top-10 for a long time.

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 2:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I have a strange feeling berry drops to us.

    I also am thinking that St. Louis will probably draft clausen and will most definitely draft a QB. I would rather have bradford anyways. with a good O-line like ours protecting his blind side, he can truly be great (possibly)

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 2:58 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I really want a new QB but I absolutely don’t want Clausen. I have no objective basis for this.

    I’m really starting to want Bradford, almost to the point where I’d take him over Berry.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 8:33 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I’d rather have Berry by all means…I just feel like this is not the year for us to be looking for a QB in the draft unless we have the chance for an absolute steal in rounds 3-7.

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 10, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I wouldn’t be horrified if the FO takes McCoy in the second. I would love it if they decided Bradford was worth it and took him.

    That said, it does seem unlikely we’ll get our guy in this draft. Weak class for QBs.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I am really surprised there hasn’t been a Cutler/Flaccoesque meteoric rise by some QB yet. Maybe a sign of the strength of the class.

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Lack thereof?

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 8:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Right. As usual, Gahnki is correct in that there is still plenty of time.

    by rufio on Feb 11, 2010 1:39 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    There’s still a lot of time for that to happen. The Combine should be interesting regarding quarterbacks.

    by gahnki on Feb 10, 2010 10:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Besides, wouldln’t St. Louis have 3 first rounders on their D-line if they picked up Suoh or McCoy? Adam Carriker and Chris Long?

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 10, 2010 9:37 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    exactly…how brilliant would they look…I doubt anyone here can name the last time a DT was drafted #1 overall without looking it up…

    I did look it up and it was 1994, Dan Wilkinson…yeah, i doubt people have even heard of him but they probably have heard of Marshall Faulk, Trent Dilfer, Willie McGinnest, and Jamir Miller. all of these guys were drafted high in that draft, after him.

    I know that isn’t a good argument, but DTs in the first round have a surprisingly high bust rate. You would think DTs in the first would be safe picks, but NO. they are the most risky pick after a WR. they even get riskier the higher in the first you get. you are much better getting a guy in the later rounds.

    QBs on the other hand are one of the safer picks. contrary to popular belief, QBs are not only less likely to bust, but less likely to bust in the top 5 compared to the top 10, top 10 compared to the top 15…

    the positions drafted high consistently (LT, QB, RB, DE) except for WR are much safer in the top 5 than anywhere else, and safer in the top half of the first than the bottom. so with those players there are the elite few and everyone else. also these positions are consistently worth where they are picked.

    Positions not drafted high (DT, RT, S) are usually safer in the 2nd half of the first (safety is equally safe anywhere)

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Who hasn’t heard of Big Daddy Dan Wilkinson?

    by Roger Dorn on Feb 10, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    i guess someone has…i wasn’t sure who had or had not.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Bid Daddy was awesome.

    fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com

    by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 10, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    In college maybe…

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 10, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    In the pros he was serviceable…thats about it. Decent, a starter, but really not very spectacular.

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 10, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    that is one of the problems I have noticed with DTs drafted in the top 10-15. many of them have been servicable starters at best. the only guys that have been spectacular that were drafted in the top 15 since 1999 were haynesworth and seymour (and this is debatable). many don’t even end up being starters.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I meant as a personality. And also as a college player.

    fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com

    by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 11, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Russel Maryland.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Exactly. Big Daddy was on the cover of Sports Illustrated before the draft. Also, he was the last OSU player drafted #1 overall before Orlando Pace.

    by Buckeye Brad on Feb 11, 2010 9:54 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Steve Spagnuolo.

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    As long as there is no Rookie cap

    teams will really want to avoid the top 10. With a salary cap you just have too much money tied up in an unproven player. And then you look at the bust potential, especially at QB and WR.

    by burmafrd1944 on Feb 8, 2010 5:16 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

    This is the entire reason that people are calling for a “rookie cap” in the new CBA, similar to the NBA. Players are still slotted, but they play for their big money contracts.

    I would think that if a rookie cap came into play, the top picks suddenly become much more valuable, no?

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 8, 2010 10:16 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

    I would say yes, provided the rookie cap is structured differently than the way things currently stand.

    by rufio on Feb 9, 2010 12:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Everyone is forgetting one key point here….. Mangini is not the one doing the picking this year…. remember we hired a specialist

    by GIBBY82 on Feb 9, 2010 1:51 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    I’m sure he’ll have plenty of input. Also, the article itself is independent of any specific coach.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 7:15 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Plus Heckert and the Eagles were masters of trading down also.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 9, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    True. That is why this team could be contenders this coming season……..GO BROWNS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by GIBBY82 on Feb 10, 2010 1:58 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I commend you on developing your own theory.
    The salary cap (127 million $) divided by players dressed (45), resulting in 2.82 million $ per player, isn´t a bad salary for a communist team.
    Assuming it is a communist team, what would compel them to redistribute the money amongst themselves, how would they do it? The starters would probably receive a bonus, and then the ones wanting to leave would receive incentives for staying. Feasible?
    From that point on, we are capitalist.
    I get your point, that the draft is disruptive from a financial standpoint.
    Since we aren´t apt to mess with the system, we simply won´t draft in the top 3 rounds. We realize that to buy stars you are investing in the hype and scouting that made them so rare. Thus we make stars, not buy them. We trust our evaluations. It´s a big country, and amongst the multitude of millions of citizens we trust we can find superior athletes at an affordable price.
    I´M KIDDING! Truth be told, your theory can only be countered by another outlandish theory.

    by mooncamping on Feb 9, 2010 7:46 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

    1.) The NFL is actually one of the most communist organizations in America
    2.)

    Since we aren´t apt to mess with the system, we simply won´t draft in the top 3 rounds.

    Can you read?
    3. He’s not suggesting we pay everyone equally. It was a calculation of value.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 8:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Are you implying that th position of this article is outlandish? I’m just not sure of your last statement.

    And when looking at the top teams, they are more communist in the dictatorial nature of the leadership than capitalistic in the democratic nature of following the whims (financial demands) of the proletariat players.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

    by Spidey on Feb 9, 2010 8:58 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    Rec for humor.

    by gahnki on Feb 9, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Truth be told, your theory can only be countered by another outlandish theory.

    …and you’re just the man for the job, Moon… ;)

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 10, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I must have done something wrong because after applying your formula, I found that the Browns have drafted great since 1999. What happened?

    by justrandy on Feb 9, 2010 8:24 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    Just Kidding, I don’t want anyone to get huffy.

    While I do appreciate the time and effort that you’ve put into this project, I think it’s nonsense. You can’t come up with some formula that works consistently because some players will always under produce at their slot and some will always over produce. The draft is a crapshoot and the teams that have consistently drafted well have a certain style of player that they can develop. Look at the Colts, does anyone here think that Garcon or Collie would end up being useful players here? I don’t. Another example would be Pittsburgh. They’ve always let probowl Linebackers go because they’ve developed a younger player with a similar skillset for a few years. You’ve got to have a system in place but this is all nonsense. No offense and again, I do appreciate all the time and effort that you’ve put into this but I think maybe you should apply that to finding the best value for our Team in this coming draft not where the best have been due to slotting and financial value for performance. I personally would pay an arm and a leg to have a Polamalu or Ed Reed because that’s a sure thing. I wouldn’t bet on losing out on a Darrell Revis-type player in Joe Haden because there may be a serviceable player in the 2nd round. That’s crazy.

    by justrandy on Feb 9, 2010 8:35 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    This isn’t designed to evaluate players. It’s designed to evaluate value. You need to understand that prior to casting aspersion, because you clearly don’t.

    I wouldn’t bet on losing out on a Darrell Revis-type player in Joe Haden because there may be a serviceable player in the 2nd round. That’s crazy.

    That’s a poor example for at least two reasons. One, for every Darrel Revis there is a Pacman Jones. There are other players that come at huge cost and offered no value: you cannot cherry pick one extreme and ignore the other side of the coin. Two, he isn’t suggesting trading a first round pick for a second. In fact, he even offers a very specific example:

    Ask the Chiefs if they would be willing to trade both of thier second rounders (50th worth 400 points and the 36th worth 540 points) plus their third rounder (68th worth 250 points) for the 7th pick.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 8:48 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    The point of this being to relieve ourselves of the risk that comes with having a top 10 pick. According to one outspoken member on our site, Haden is a kid that takes plays off and plays better in a zone than in man and gets burned and believes we only like him because he’s fast.

    While we might miss out on a top corner by trading down, we would amass more picks to fill more needs, and find players that won’t be as risky nor would they be as costly. Plus, with the deep pool of talent, the second round pick may have turned out to be first rounders if they had waited a year.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 9, 2010 9:29 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Haden takes plays off? Do you agree with that or are you mocking the “outspoken member” on this site?

    I like Haden because he’s so much better than the next level of first round corners. He’s so far ahead, talent-wise, that he makes guys that will be coming off the board in the first round look like 2nd and 3rd rounders. He’s clearly the cream of the crop and our biggest weakness, defensively has been our secondary. The falloff if you miss out on Haden is cavernous but if you pass on someone like Berry, whom I believe is the most talented all around Safety to come out since Reed, is more minimal. You’ll be able to find starting safeties in the middle rounds this year but after Haden, everyone is a massive reach.

    by justrandy on Feb 9, 2010 9:46 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Our biggest weakness is not at CB.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Mocking.

    I agree that if you can get a top talent like Haden or Berry, you take them. But if we’re faced with an option of talented players that come with some risks (lazy Jamarcus Russel anyone?) than it’d be better to minimize those risks.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 9, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    That’s a wonderful position to take, but considering many of the top minds in football had Russel labeled as elite, let’s go ahead and take the hindsight specs off.

    EVERY player comes with risks. Courtney Brown worked damn hard, Bentley WAS elite, and Robert Gallery was going to be Joe Thomas before anyone ever heard of Joe Thomas.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I won’t argue about people thinking Jamarcus was elite, but there were still concerns about his work ethic off the field. Many scouts thought that he could be trained to have the right work ethic and fell in love with his physical tools. I was a firm believer that Quinn should have gone #1 overall back then despite being outplayed by Russel in the Sugar bowl.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 9, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    There are concerns about just about every player (Bradford’s shoulder, Leinart’s work ethic), and even when there aren’t there are still risks (Courtney Brown).

    Quinn has demonstrated why he would have been a terrible value at #1 overall, by the way.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yes, there are concerns but its what kind and what degree those concerns are that should bother teams. Bradford’s shoulder is going to be a huge red flag for some teams if it bothers him at the combine.

    Chris Wells’s chronic injuries caused him to drop to the second-to-last pick of the first round. At that position it’s a lot less risky to take him than in the top 10, no?

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 9, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Right, I was simply commenting on this:

    I agree that if you can get a top talent like Haden or Berry, you take them.

    It’s not always that simple, is all. If you are going to be paying a guy at #7, you need value proportional to the contract. That’s gotten very hard to come by. More often than not, it’s a better gamble to take two or three shots in the second/third rounds than one huge risk up top.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Oh ya, ya. I completely agree with that. The talent definetly has the match the slot. I agree 100%. The whole point is to lessen the risk/ garunteed money by trying low, ja? Ya, I got that completely.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 9, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I was praying Russell didn’t fall to us.

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 2:34 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Me too, honestly.

    I remember watching the LSU bowl game, and being absolutely stunned by how effortlessly he could throw the ball 70 yards. I thought, “scouts are going to drool over this kid, but why haven’t we heard more about him? Something must be missing…”

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 8:37 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    He kinda fell into that had 1 great year category…and then scouts get blinded by the bowl game as well.

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 10, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    But he won the big game!!!!

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    And you were right! Haha.

    by emily522 on Feb 10, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Plus, Savage was clearly in love with the kid.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I think Dorn had something about Savage having his draft board lined up Thomas, Peterson, Quinn, 1-2-3, and that the whole Russel thing was a smoke screen. We will never know. Thankfully.

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I’d like to think that, but its seemed so terrifyingly real.

    Deep breaths, deep breaths…

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 8:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    That was someone else, I actually was taking Savage at his word on Russell, but admit I am not sure what that guy thinks.

    by Roger Dorn on Feb 11, 2010 9:15 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I’d take Quinn over Russell any day.

    by emily522 on Feb 10, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    A scathing comment on Russell’s worth…

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    You must’ve had something to do with this article because as I said before, I didn’t want anyone to get all huffy. Well, guess what? You got huffy. So, anyway, what if the said 2 second rounders are crap too? As far as I understand it, you can blow every pick in the second round because like I’ve said, it’s a crapshoot. I do understand that what he’s trying to accomplish is to build a team that costs little to nothing while getting great value in later rounds. I’ve seen other teams try this. The Indians being the first that comes to mind. How’s that working out?

    You have to have star players. It’s simple. Look at every successful Team out there. There’s a star or two on each side of the ball. Now for every Pacman Jones that you can give me, I’ll give you a Revis and a Leon Hall or Nnamdi Asomugha. Most of the time, you’re star players at the building blocks positions, are found in the first round. That’s not to say that you can’t find perennial pro bowlers in the second through seventh rounds because you can and it happens a lot the chances decrease statistically the further down you go in the talent pool. Sure you can find a Tom Brady in the 6th round once in a blue moon but how often does that really happen?

    by justrandy on Feb 9, 2010 9:40 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    He’s not saying you don’t need star players. We all know that you need star players in order to succeed. But what we’re talking about here is minimizing the risk if the “star player” doesn’t work out whether its injury or otherwise. Courtney Brown was a star in the making but he ended up getting hurt and wasn’t effective. But we still had to pay him the money that we signed him to.

    The point is to avoid putting all kinds of money into an unproven player, stud or not. Matt Ryan got $75 million before playing a snap! We all figured he’d be pretty good, but if starts having chronic injury problems or doesn’t pan out then he’s not worth all that money, is he? Russel got $60 million in his rookie contract as the number one pick. Sure, the Raiders figured he was the best QB in the draft, but they have so much money tied up in him that they have their hands tied to try and “make it work”.

    Sure, the talent drops off after the first round but the risk/reward ratio changes drastically in our favour.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 9, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I have nothing to do with the article, and I wasn’t offended by your critique but the lack of understanding espoused in your critique.

    So, anyway, what if the said 2 second rounders are crap too?

    That’s the whole point. If you miss on the two second rounders, which is (probably) less likely than missing on one 7th overall, at least you haven’t invested a massive contract and signing bonus. You can move on much more painlessly.

    Now for every Pacman Jones that you can give me, I’ll give you a Revis and a Leon Hall or Nnamdi Asomugha.

    Look back at all the drafts, I think you’ll find your ratios are off.

    Look, there’s something to be said about acquiring top flight, elite talent at the top of the draft. No one is going to deny that. That’s where most of your elite players at LT, CB, and QB are going to be found. It may be the case that this year, the Browns are best served getting a QB or CB at #7. That doesn’t mean that strategy is in the best interest of every team all the time. Why?

    It’s often times not worth the risk. The key thing to take away is that it’s certainly not ALWAYS worth the risk. An organization should not want to keep drafting in the top ten every year, and not just because that means they’re losing, but also because you’ll wind up with too many huge contracts that aren’t providing value.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    That’s the whole point. If you miss on the two second rounders, which is (probably) less likely than missing on one 7th overall, at least you haven’t invested a massive contract and signing bonus. You can move on much more painlessly.

    Exactly.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    It is not a complete crapshoot. There is some risk to “missing” on every pick, just like there is risk involved in every shooter missing a free throw.

    Keeping the basketball analogy going, BK19 is saying that second round draft picks are like 60% shots when you are tied with .1 seconds left—a great percentage and if you miss it’s not the end of the world. FIrst round picks are like 70% shots, but when you are down 2 points with .1 seconds left. A great percentage, a better percentage, but if you miss, you lose.

    There is always a risk that you miss the shot, even if it is a high-percentage shot. There is always a risk that your draft pick sucks, but second round picks are safer because of the smaller contracts, and they still give you a good chance to find a very good player.

    by rufio on Feb 10, 2010 2:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Look at every successful Team out there. There’s a star or two on each side of the ball. Now for every Pacman Jones that you can give me, I’ll give you a Revis and a Leon Hall or Nnamdi Asomugha.

    This doesn’t help you.

    I am saying that a team should set the ceiling at pick (give a spot in either direction).

    Revis was the 14th pick. Leon Hall was the 18th pick. Nnamdi Ashomuga was the 31st pick.

    You don’t have to pick in the top 15 to get value. There is much cheaper talent later in the draft. That is what the premise is.

    You can still draft in the first round, it just has to be in the second half of the first round.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    That was supposed to say pick 15.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    You can’t come up with some formula that works consistently because some players will always under produce at their slot and some will always over produce.

    That’s a poor example for at least two reasons. One, for every Darrel Revis there is a Pacman Jones.

     

    Nearly the same thought, right? I mean, I’m not crazy, right? You just took my skeleton statement and applied names to it right?

    It’s sort of like the Algebraic formulas we learned only you plugged names into my A, B, and C’s. Thanks I guess.

    by justrandy on Feb 9, 2010 9:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    You’re taking that line out of context, Mr. Strawman. I even block quoted what I was refuting to avoid confusion.

    Again, the author isn’t trying to develop a formula for evaluating players. He’s simply showing where in the draft the best value can be had.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Why is this bolded?

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    looks like everyone’s yelling and I’m getting scared. Where’s Mommy?

    Fooootball has been beary beary good to me.

    by doggrad87 on Feb 9, 2010 9:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE YELLING ABOUT

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 9, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I LOVE LAMP!

    They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best

    About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback

    by Villeslgr on Feb 9, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

    LOUD NOISES!!

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 2:58 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I’m still getting my feet wet in this format. I liked how you used the block quotes in this format and I haven’t quite figured it out yet. I will. I was trying to show you how your argument against me was already basically prefaced in my prior statement. You just didn’t quite read everything that I wrote before you started attacking my understanding of what the author was trying to accomplish. Again, I do have a firm grasp on what the point of this piece is. I guess what I don’t understand is why he had to spend the time doing what we all already know. It’s like someone telling you about the laws of gravity. It’s already known in a common sense way but Newton applied a definition to what was already there. I guess that’s more along the lines of what I’m thinking. Now, if I am a bit too agressive in my arguing of this point, I apologize. I’m 35 and I’ve been a smoker for 20+ years and I just quit a month ago so I’m a bit testy from time to time. Hahaha.

    by justrandy on Feb 10, 2010 7:07 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    If you type or paste text, then highlight it, then click the little blue quotation mark, it will put the block quote around it. Or you can just hit the blue quote button and then place the text cursor between the “>” and “<” and type or paste your quote. Same way bold, italics, etc. work.

    Much of this does seem like common sense, yes, but you argued against it when you said things like:

    I found that the Browns have drafted great since 1999. What happened?

    (Since we consistently decided to keep our picks in the top 5, we had huge contracts on top of bad picks)

    or

    I think it’s nonsense. You can’t come up with some formula that works consistently because some players will always under produce at their slot and some will always over produce.

    (This statement implies the “formula” is meant to rate individual players. Of course, you have to be good at picking the best player at any given slot, that’s a given. All we’re trying to say is the risk of taking players so high is often not worth the contract)

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 8:46 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Well, he said he was kidding about the Browns draft.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 10, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yeah, but he reinforced the idea later.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yeah, but he reinforced the idea later.

    Cool, thanks for the help.

    Anyway, I’ve never in any way tried to “reinforce” the idea. It was obviously a tongue-in-cheek remark as I did say. This is you trying to win what you obviously believe to be an argument. Okay, you win. I was not trying to argue. I’m making a point is all. I think the point has been made.

    This statement implies the "formula" is meant to rate individual players.

    Okay, Amelia Badelia, semantically speaking, the word “formula” could imply that I believe that it’s a ratings system. However, I believe that I have stated that I understand what the intent of the post was. I just don’t agree that it’s in a clubs best interest to think this way. If you do, fine. Again, I’m not trying to argue with anyone because I see what the point was. I just think that it is a waste of the author’s time because it is common sense and logical. I don’t need anyone to show me an “equation” that states what is clearly obvious. That’s like saying, “Here is a door, if you walk through it, you will be in a new room. Watch as I do it to prove that I am correct.”
    Again, I personally don’t think it’s necessary. That’s all.

    by justrandy on Feb 10, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I see what you’re saying, but I do think you’re being a bit too dismissive of the value here.

    I do think there is value in this, because not everyone thinks this way. I’d even say most NFL fans don’t think this way.

    Personally, I’ve held the viewpoint that avoiding the top ten or fifteen is for the best for some time, but I never went through and developed a sound reasoning other than the superficial “man, that’s a ton of cash / salary cap space to risk on missing.” This shows a few things that help:

    1. Where the salaries begin to become reasonable (actually a bit lower than I had thought)
    2. Where the talent begins to drop off significantly (something I had only guessed at prior

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I went back and calculated what I call bust rates since 1999 for every position of players drafted in the first round.

    I started at 2007 b/c it is hard to start earlier and judge busts. some guys I threw out the window because it was too early to judge.

    some guys I do not consider bust or “not busts”…guys like matt leinart and quinn…these guys I consider in bust purgatory.

    This is what I found:

    -Wide Receivers have the highest bust rate of all positions with a 66% bust rate

    -Centers have the lowest. in those 9 years, only 4 centers were drafted in the first, and none were busts.

    -Out of the guys taken in the first and immediately made rush OLBs, the bust rate was surprisingly low (16.666% bust rate)

    This is ranking of bust rates from lowest to highest. I have included both safety positions and combined DE with Rush OLB. I also will list RT separate from LT, and list all the O-Line outside of LT as its own category (and interior lineman as one as well)

    1: G/C 11% (no Cs have been a bust, 20% bust rate for G)
    2: (tie) TE and rush OLB 16.666%
    3: LT 25%
    4: ILB/MLB 27.3%
    5: QB 29%
    6: Safety 30%
    7: RT/G/C 30.3% (close to RT % b/c G/C rarely get drafted in first)
    8: OLB (in 4-3) 33%
    9: RT 36.3%
    10: RB 38.7 %
    11: DE/Rush OLB 39%
    12: CB: 42%
    13: DE 44%
    14: DT 50% (this surprised me…)
    15: WR 66%…

    so QB is not as risky as some would have though…most of the risk is when you get hung up on combines or cannon arms and salivate over them (like jamarcus russell).

    For those who worry about us drafting a CB, the times CBs bust is when a team just salivates over a 40 time and might ignore the fact that he doesn’t have ball skills or instincts…same with many of the safety busts. DEs can be the same way when someone just gets in awe of physical skills.

    thankfully, I do not think that eric berry, derrick morgan, or joe haden fit the mold of the busts at those positions.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 1:31 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    I don’t know how it happend like that…with the bold

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 1:32 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Did you exclude the bust purgatory players from the analysis? If you keep them in the base (denominator), you would be understating the bust %.

    Instead of quibbling over the specific numbers, though, the relative values should not change a whole lot. When you need to avoid failing on a first round pick it is smart to go OL. Ugh! The pain I feel about all of those drafts we screwed up in the first round…

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

    by Spidey on Feb 10, 2010 9:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    I thought that was a good bit of investigatory work. If you were to include guys who’re on the “border” of bust or success, wouldn’t that skew the numbers a bit? Sure, Quinn and Leinhart havn’t particularly shown anything yet, but neither has started for a full season, much less had a whole off season to prepare as the starter nor with much support. I’d be willing to give each one full season/off-season as the starter before making my final call.

    And of course it’s smart to go after OL in the first round. But what are you going to do once you have the guys in place? Go for an OL variant of Mooney’s 22 Fullback formation?

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 10, 2010 9:48 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I agree. It was hard to include leinart and quinn. I didn’t put them as busts because I don’t categorize them as busts. after this season, I could go back maybe and recategorize them once they get a true shot but as of right now, they didn’t factor in. I agree that we should give them more of a chance and thats what I did.

    It is smart to go O-Line, especially tackle (although interior line, and RT are rarely taken in the top 15…interior line has not been taken in the top 15 in a long time) but it is also smart to go many other positions to build a team.

    Besides O-Line, I would suggest taking DEs in the first round, especially top 10. DEs are important and are much safer when they are projected top 10, top 15. RBs also are surprisingly safe. also with RBs, they are safer, higher in the draft. many of the positions that are usually drafted higher, tend to be safer, higher in the draft.

    WRs though I would say try to get in later rounds. I will try to do an article on here about where WRs should be drafted (I am thinking 2nd or 3rd). I would suggest getting safeties in the first too, and as long as you draft smart, CBs should be okay.

    While the CB rate is high, it is skewed by bad drafting. it is teams drafting for size and speed, instead of production and playmaking ability. you have teams salivating over 40 times and drafting solely on speed. haden has good speed, but he also is a ballhawk and produced in college. he was a great player whenever he played and was a first team all american. out of the busts at CB that were drafted in the first, there were no All-Americans (on any team) and most were not even all conference (and very few were ever first team all conference).

    the only D-Back to be drafted and be an All-American and bust was safety Michael huff…but he is with the Raiders…

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Unless you’re the Browns FO. Then drafting WR’s in the second round should be banned…..after this year’s draft.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 10, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    maybe…

    at the same time, I haven’t researched it, but drafting WRs then might be less risky than drafting them in the first. 2/3 of WRs drafting in the first become busts. My expectations for busts are fairly low. if you are at all productive, no matter where in the first you are drafted, you are not a bust. so that shows how bad it is drafting a WR in the first.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I did not include bust purgatory guys. What I did is not an exact science either.

    But there are some generalities that can be made that are helpful.

    -LT and the rest of the OL are usually safe picks

    -LTs in the top of the draft tend to do better than ones in the bottom 15 of the first

    -QBs are a much less risky pick than many have believed

    -DTs are in fact a risky pick. many don’t even turn out to be significant starters. many non busts didn’t bust to me just because they started all the years and produced for a few.

    -WRs are extremely risky. I would advise against drafting WRs in the first round

    -DE/OLBs are a safer pick than many have thought. they are also much safer in the top 15.

    -Safeties are fairly safe.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Can you provide a little more info on the criteria you used to define busts? Particularly at QB?

    I’m just curious.

    Awesome work, by the way.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 10:40 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    honestly, it was slightly arbitrary. a bust was someone who just never played well.

    I did not consider bust not playing up to the potential, but just not playing well period. in that sense, David Carr near the end of his starting career redeemed himself a bit. While I don’t consider him a good QB, he finally developed and was a good QB by his 3rd season. to be a bust, in general you have to just consistently underperform (not factoring where exactly the player was drafted). also if a player could not stay on the field, I would consider the player a bust (like willis mcgahee who also didn’t perform that amazingly when on the field).

    I tried to also not include a couple freak injuries. Gaines adams does not count as a bust in my book. first of all, it was too early to call him a bust, second of all…you know the rest. David pollack I do not consider a bust either.

    basically, if you didn’t even end up being a solid player, you were a bust.

    thanks though. sometimes I get an idea and just keep investigating and lose track of time (i was up really late figuring this out).

    I also figured out bust rates for where in the first a player was drafted.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Interesting stuff.

    1.) Put this as another reason I’m about to jump totally off the Joe Haden bandwagon (and closer to boarding the Rolando McClain bandwagon).

    2.) One issue I have is how you classified busts. There has to be some connection to expectations. David Carr has to be a bust. The entire point of B19K’s article is value. The value is so terrible with a high pick, partially because even when someone has a decent little career, the amount invested in that player is overwhelming.

    fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com

    by Ryan Kelsey on Feb 10, 2010 2:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I agree about carr. that one was somewhat arbitrary. I admitted before it was a little arbitrary. I was also not equating bust to expectations. i was just saying if they actually performed well at all.

    I do like mcClain but do not be scared away by haden. out of all the CBs that busted, none were all americans (first second, or third team) ever. less than 50% were even all conference (and most were never first team all conference). haden this year was a first team AA. All of the guys that busted had great 40 times and combines and jumped up the boards b/c GMs salivated over speed. haden is projected high, not only b/c of speed, but b/c of production and ball skills.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Now THAT I can agree with. Good work sniffing out some valuble facts, man!

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 10, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    the only other bust that won any sort of award was Carlos Rogers. he was a jim thorpe winner. voting for these things though is about popularity and school/name recognition. yes some great CBs have won this award, but some crap guys have won it as well. antoine winfield and charles woodsen won it but they were big 10 guys. rogers won it at auburn back when auburn was really, really good (around 2004-2005ish). rogers was also the best CB I considered a bust and was really unsure about him for a while. he is decent in coverage but has some of the worst hands in the NFL.

    by bross09 on Feb 10, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I started the Bolding. I think that I should be the one that ends it.

    There

    by justrandy on Feb 10, 2010 6:37 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    So, I didn’t mean to bail on the conversation yesterday but my internet’s been spotty what with all the weather and stuff.

    That said, Danvail, I agree that you shouldn’t want to pick in the top 10 always. What I was saying, and this was my whole point, the research and work involved in this article was nonsense because it arrived at a useless point. We all know and understand the value of keeping the payroll lower while trying to raise the bar talent-wise. I could’ve told you that with no research or work at all. This is just a confirmation of logic and common sense. Now, this bross09 is on to something with the bust rate analysis. If he could apply that to this equation then it becomes useful. It helps us to understand why some GM’s will tell you that you never take a receiver in the top 10 or a safety in the top 20. You know what I mean? There are some positions that you almost always have to draft high. I’d say they go, LT, CB, QB, and DE(for a 4-3 but you can find serviceable 3-4 ends later in the draft).

    Lastly, I think using the word “Nonsense” is a bit too strong. Sorry. I don’t mean to disrespect anyone or the work that was involved in researching this article. It obviously has taken a lot of time and effort and a willingness to look at data in a subjective way. I totally respect that so I withdraw the word “Nonsense” but I find it hard to replace it with a gentler word. How about I call this a Misappropriation of statistical analysis?

    by justrandy on Feb 10, 2010 6:53 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    Have you read the previous post? BK19 is going to try and find out just which “common knowledge” facts still hold up in today’s NFL. Sure, it sounds like common sense. It was common sense back in the day that the world was flat. Common sense, right?

    He’s just trying to determine if our flat-view still holds up today. The draft formula he’s come up with? Still true today. But other theories might not hold up. Which ones will and which one’s won’t are what he’s trying to find out. Kinda liky “Mythbusters: The Pro Football Edition”.

    by BrownDawg1409 on Feb 10, 2010 9:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Right, plus MANY teams don’t seem to get this. It’s only a handful of teams that seem to actually apply this common sense.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Bold fail.

    If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...

    by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Oh, it will bold, just wait.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 10:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Holy crap, it did.

    If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...

    by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    The value of this article is not that it’s come up with some innovative, groundbreaking new school of thought based in elegant and complex maths, but in applying common sense and some rudimentary numbers to demonstrate why most savvy fans have come to value high second round picks.

    I think B19K actually does plan to run through this by position, as he mentioned he’s working on a QB post now. This particular piece was a simply broad overview of the draft.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 10:18 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Correct.

    This article was to show what area the Browns should try and have most of their picks in.

    After this, I am breaking it down, position by position where the best “area” of drafting that particular position has been.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    If it common sense, why do we see team every year jumping up in the draft? Jets jumped up last season. New Orleans junped up for Sedrick Ellis.

    Off the top of my head, I cannot remember one team taking 75% of the trade calue chart in order to trade down.

    Only one team has attacked the second round the two past seasons and it is New England.

    I don’t see how it is “common sense”.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Yeah, the idea that this is common does not seem to be true. There are unique exceptions for trading up- to acquire the missing piece on an otherwise well-built team. When a team has a strong base, it is able to take a higher risk gamble and trade up or stay put with that high selection.

    Picking in the draft is a lot like playing the stock market. Aggressive buying and selling may give a high return one year, but over the long run indexing outperforms managed find that think they can outsmart the market. One of the points of that Thaler/Massey study is that people continue to think they are smarter than the market. In the long run it is a strategy for failure.

    The smart ones in this game realize they are not so smart, and take every opportunity to avoid making foolish decisions.

    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin

    by Spidey on Feb 10, 2010 7:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

    Correct.

    From what I have seen so far, the best teams all do one thing well. Minimize risk.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 10:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Okay, that’s weird. I was here earlier and this was not bolded. Now, I come back and it’s all bolded. Who’s playing tricks on me?

    by justrandy on Feb 10, 2010 7:34 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    So, for some reason, everything is now bolding…………..

    by justrandy on Feb 10, 2010 7:37 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    thats better than everything balding…….

    I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

    by notthatnoise on Feb 10, 2010 10:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I think B19K messed up some HTML script again. Because almost every new comment bolds. Even the signatures.

    If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...

    by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2010 11:53 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

    Actually, check. The fanposts and fanshots are now sitting under the articles again.

    C’MON B19K!

    If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...

    by SpecialBrownie on Feb 10, 2010 11:54 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    This is one gigantic eye sore.

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    This is one gigantic eye sore.

    Fixed.

    "I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren

    by johnnyphoenix on Feb 10, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    I am a horrible person.

    by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    This does hurt the eyes.

    by gahnki on Feb 10, 2010 3:35 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

    I am the Anti-Bold

    by gahnki on Feb 10, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    Wait for it…

    Brady Quinn will never be a good quarterback for the Browns.

    by danvail on Feb 10, 2010 3:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

    This is interesting, and clearly high draft pick busts are common and risky, but the more obvious reason is that high draft pick teams suck. Worse yet, they expect the high draft pick to be the miracle cure to pull them out of the cellar. Then when they don’t perform well in their first few starts, bad coaches and managers yank them out.

    The pats and steelers are not just a bunch of second rounders, they also have high picks like palamalu, woodley, Seymour (had), and wilfork

    by HenryDawg on Feb 12, 2010 2:29 PM EST via mobile reply actions   0 recs

    This is interesting, and clearly high draft pick busts are common and risky, but the more obvious reason is that high draft pick teams suck. Worse yet, they expect the high draft pick to be the miracle cure to pull them out of the cellar. Then when they don’t perform well in their first few starts, bad coaches and managers yank them out.

    The pats and steelers are not just a bunch of second rounders, they also have high picks like palamalu, woodley, Seymour (had), and wilfork

    by HenryDawg on Feb 12, 2010 2:32 PM EST via mobile reply actions   0 recs

    Sorry for the dbl post

    by HenryDawg on Feb 12, 2010 2:33 PM EST via mobile reply actions   0 recs

    Comments For This Post Are Closed


    User Tools

    Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.

    Community Guidelines
    Send us a Scoop

    Start posting about the Browns »

    Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

    Connect_with_facebook

    FanPosts

    Community blog posts and discussion.

    Recommended FanPosts

    Th_clevelandbrowns-1-1-1_small
    My Joe Montana Experience

    Recent FanPosts

    Small
    SB Nation Survey + Chance to donate $500 to a charity of this community's choice
    019_small
    I Still Think The Browns Need A Veteran WR
    Small
    Info on Peyton Hillis
    Small
    Next Up on the Tradining block....
    20051225mf_fbn_fan_takedownpj_450_small
    Quinn and 2nd round pick to Broncos for Marshal
    Troy_smith_small
    About the Jake Delhomme acquisition.
    4horsemen_small
    Possible Mid round Sleepers.
    Twitter-av_small
    Why didn't we trade for McNabb or Kolb?
    Rogerdorn_small
    The Pittsburgh Steelers are Hypocrites?

    + New FanPost All FanPosts >

    Browns Links

    Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

    Arrowhead Pride
    Alabama's Terrence Cody Lining Up Visits With 3-4 Teams
    Stampede Blue
    March Madness 3/20 open thread #3
    Mocking The Draft
    Anthony Dixon NFL Draft scouting report

    SBNation.com Recent Stories

    Photo link

    A Deeper Look At The 2009 Cowboys Running Game

    Photo +1 updates

    Rams, Redskins Showing Interest In QB Sam Bradford

    Photo +3 updates

    Trent Baalke Reportedly Taking Over 49ers GM Duties

    More from SBNation.com >


    Executive Editor

    Dbn_small Chris Pokorny

    Moderators

    Pryor_small Buckeye Brad